narniafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Dog-Fox
Deletion Discussion From Storyseeker1's edit summary: The fox at the party is already mentioned on the fox page, so there is no need for him to have a separate page, especially when it's so little. I actually disagree. The WikiFormat says that "All events, people, and places directly referenced in Lewis’ text...should be given an article." I agree that what is currently on this page isn't enough to warrant a full article, but there is a decent amount that could be added to it. We could also replace the info on Fox with a link to this page, so that we don't have as much duplicated info. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 21:57, August 31, 2013 (UTC) Why bother? The info was already on the Fox page, so why waste space by putting up 2 similiar pages. It's stupid, unnecessary, waste of time and cyberspace, and he wasn't even called the "Dog-Fox", in the book or any of the films, anyway. He was simply referred to as Fox. So we'd be having two pages with the same title, because I doubt anyone new to this site would think to search for a page that says dog-fox, as there was no character by that name in the franchise. Storyseeker1 (talk) 22:29, August 31, 2013 (UTC) I agree that Dog-Fox is not the best name for the page; I was thinking of Mr. Fox (that character's name in the movie). As for keeping the page itself, there are several reasons. First and foremost, the WikiFormat we all agreed on is pretty clear. Also, there is info that could go on this page that couldn't go on the general Fox page (see my edits to Dog-Fox). Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 22:56, August 31, 2013 (UTC) He was never referred to as Mr. Fox, except in the animated film. Again, no one would think to look for a page with that title unless they had seen the animated film. And I've looked, and unless I'm missing something, everything you've written on the dog-fox page has come straight from the Fox page. I still go with what I said before, it's a waste of time. And just for the record, you shouldn't have done all that editing of the fox page and everything until "after" a final decision had been made. Storyseeker1 (talk) 23:08, August 31, 2013 (UTC) That's actually not the case; Rupert Everett is credited as Mr. Fox in the live-action movie. About my edits to the dog-fox page, I think you probably looked before I was finished (I'm actually still not quite). About the Fox page, all I did was to remove a section that clearly did not belong there; that edit was mostly separate from this discussion. Also, regardless of names and how much info we could put on the page and everything else, the WikiFormat supports the article's existence. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 23:38, August 31, 2013 (UTC) So why even bothering starting this talk page if you were going to go ahead with it anyway? Storyseeker1 (talk) 23:40, August 31, 2013 (UTC) I didn't mean to offend, and I haven't done anything permanent yet. If you want to continue discussing, please feel free. Otherwise, would you either remove the deletion notice or let me know and I'll do it? Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 00:39, September 1, 2013 (UTC) Why are there now two pages of the mister fox in question??? Mr. Fox and Dog-Fox I was making revisions to the Dog-Fox page, since it would appear that discussion was pointless, but now it seems there's two different pages. Storyseeker1 (talk) 01:08, September 1, 2013 (UTC) It looks like when you renamed Dog-fox to Mr. Fox, Dog-fox became a re-direct (which is, of course, what's supposed to happen), and then somehow Dog-fox got changed from a redirect back to its original content. I'm not sure what happened, but I think it's fixed now. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 01:45, September 1, 2013 (UTC) Yeah, back to the page that had the least info on it. Storyseeker1 (talk) 01:47, September 1, 2013 (UTC) I didn't realize that. I'll transfer the changes. Lasaraleen Tarkheena (talk) 01:50, September 1, 2013 (UTC) Great. Storyseeker1 (talk) 02:12, September 1, 2013 (UTC)